3 ms·

Devil’s advocate: Isn’t the whole point of being bound by the Rule of Law to eliminate this kind of David and Goliath situation? If I’m mistaken in this assum

Devil’s advocate: Isn’t the whole point of being bound by the Rule of Law to eliminate this kind of David and Goliath situation? If I’m mistaken in this assumption, please tell me why. If I’m correct in this assumption, where has the system been corrupted in this case? (End Devil’s advocate. Seriously interested in where things went wrong, because if this is being raised as a question instead of reported as a clear outcome, something’s gone wrong.)

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago
The goal of the Rule of Law is to reduce this problem, but it hasn't succeeded at eliminating it (and never will). It's exceptionally hard to design a society so that someone with more resources doesn't have an advantage over someone with fewer resources, without massive restrictions on freedom.
internetter 3y ago
In theory, sure, in practice, when you have hundreds or thousands of times more resources than someone else, you are at an advantage. That's one of the many reasons why minorities are incarcerated at high rates (and why nobody uses public defense if they can afford private), and why organizations like the ACLU & SPLC exist. That's why we see cases like Gary Bowser (nintendo mod chip seller) being fined 15 million dollars in egregious violations of justice. Sometimes, people cannot even afford to fight, like when apple brought a lawsuit against a coffee shop with an apple logo (actually, in this case the coffee shop did win, but you can see how many times when apple sues you you just decide to go huh ok you win apple). Indeed, it's a very common tactic: stall until the opponent runs out of funding. That's even before you begin to consider things like bail and bribes (e.g. Clarance Thomas). And sure, not much of this applies directly to this case, but you can clearly see how money helps win court cases, even if you just consider the hundreds more eyes searching for loopholes.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> If I’m mistaken in this assumption, please tell me why. Because corporations can afford lawyers and have all the time in the world to argue over stuff in court. Normal people have better things to do and more important things to spend their money on. In other words, corporations use the legal system to burn people's time and money until they capitulate. If you publish something on GitHub and someone else copies it, will you sue him? I seriously doubt it. Your work might as well be in the public domain. Corporations, on the other hand, have entire legal departments dedicated to ripping you a new one if you copy their work. They're so efficient at it chances are you'll do what they want without courts even getting involved. Even if it somehow goes to court, it's not a waste of their time either since it's literally their job. I've seen corporations DMCA take down screenshots of video game emulators running games by claiming copyright infringement even though Sony literally lost a case over that when the court decided it was comparative advertising and thus not infringement. Who's gonna spend their time and money fighting the billion dollar corporation over this though? The company who fought Sony went bankrupt and got bought by Sony. Individuals have no chance.

tgsovlerkhgsel 3y ago

The goal of the Rule of Law is to reduce this problem, but it hasn't succeeded at eliminating it (and never will). It's exceptionally hard to design a society so that someone with more resources doesn't have an advantage over someone with fewer resources, without massive restrictions on freedom.

internetter 3y ago

In theory, sure, in practice, when you have hundreds or thousands of times more resources than someone else, you are at an advantage. That's one of the many reasons why minorities are incarcerated at high rates (and why nobody uses public defense if they can afford private), and why organizations like the ACLU & SPLC exist. That's why we see cases like Gary Bowser (nintendo mod chip seller) being fined 15 million dollars in egregious violations of justice. Sometimes, people cannot even afford to fight, like when apple brought a lawsuit against a coffee shop with an apple logo (actually, in this case the coffee shop did win, but you can see how many times when apple sues you you just decide to go huh ok you win apple). Indeed, it's a very common tactic: stall until the opponent runs out of funding. That's even before you begin to consider things like bail and bribes (e.g. Clarance Thomas). And sure, not much of this applies directly to this case, but you can clearly see how money helps win court cases, even if you just consider the hundreds more eyes searching for loopholes.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> If I’m mistaken in this assumption, please tell me why. Because corporations can afford lawyers and have all the time in the world to argue over stuff in court. Normal people have better things to do and more important things to spend their money on. In other words, corporations use the legal system to burn people's time and money until they capitulate. If you publish something on GitHub and someone else copies it, will you sue him? I seriously doubt it. Your work might as well be in the public domain. Corporations, on the other hand, have entire legal departments dedicated to ripping you a new one if you copy their work. They're so efficient at it chances are you'll do what they want without courts even getting involved. Even if it somehow goes to court, it's not a waste of their time either since it's literally their job. I've seen corporations DMCA take down screenshots of video game emulators running games by claiming copyright infringement even though Sony literally lost a case over that when the court decided it was comparative advertising and thus not infringement. Who's gonna spend their time and money fighting the billion dollar corporation over this though? The company who fought Sony went bankrupt and got bought by Sony. Individuals have no chance.